James S. Marks

The applicant spouse brought a motion under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of financial records from a non‑party corporation in which the respondent spouse held a 22% interest.

The disclosure was sought to permit the applicant’s expert business valuator to assess the respondent’s corporate interest, determine the accuracy of his net family property, and evaluate his income for equalization and spousal support purposes.

The respondent and the non‑party corporation opposed the request, arguing the disclosure was unnecessary and aimed at challenging the respondent’s credibility.

The court held that the requested corporate and banking records were relevant, reasonable, and necessary for a proper valuation of the respondent’s interest and that it would be unfair to proceed without them.

The court ordered the non‑party corporation to provide access to the requested documentation and required the respondent to pay an interim disbursement of $15,000 to fund the expert’s work.

The applicant and respondent, a same-sex couple, entered into a civil partnership in the United Kingdom.

After relocating to Ontario and subsequently separating, the applicant sought a divorce and corollary relief.

The respondent argued they were not married.

The applicant moved for a declaration that their U.K. civil partnership constituted a marriage under Canada's Civil Marriage Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that failing to recognize the civil partnership as a marriage would violate Canadian public policy and Charter equality rights, as the U.K. prohibited same-sex marriage and only offered civil partnerships.

The court declared the civil partnership a marriage and the parties spouses under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs arising from earlier rulings relating primarily to disclosure disputes.

The applicant had brought motions alleging non-compliance with prior disclosure orders and seeking a finding of contempt, which was not granted, though the court found the respondent had not fully complied in a timely manner.

The court considered the conduct of both parties, including the respondent’s incomplete disclosure and the applicant’s counsel’s refusal to accept earlier delivery of documents that might have avoided the motion.

Applying Family Law Rule 24 and the objectives of Rule 2, the court fixed costs at $35,000 but ordered only $10,000 payable immediately, leaving the balance to the trial judge or to be addressed on a future motion concerning fees or unresolved disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order in a family law proceeding.

The court found that the motion for contempt was improperly brought because it was not commenced using the required Form 31 and therefore the procedural requirements for contempt had not been met.

While the respondent had only substantially complied with the disclosure order after being served with the motion, the court declined to make a contempt finding.

Instead, the court directed the respondent to respond to outstanding disclosure requests within thirty days in accordance with the prior order and clarified further steps available if disclosure was not provided.

The motion for contempt was dismissed and other disclosure and financial issues were adjourned.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent damages for misrepresentation regarding a gas fireplace in a purchased home.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring uncontradicted evidence that the respondent's real estate agent knew about the fireplace issue before the offer to purchase was signed.

As a matter of law, the agent's knowledge is imputed to the purchaser.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.